Separate Suit Challenging Consent Decree Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:6 mins read

Separate Suit Challenging Consent Decree Not Maintainable

Case: Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs N. Sailesh Prasad

Coram: Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna

Case No.: CA 439 OF 2022

Court Observation: “It is observed and held by this Court that Rule 3A of Order XXIII bars the suit to set aside the decree on the ground that the compromise on which decree was passed was not lawful. It is further observed and held that an agreement or compromise which is clearly void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful and the bar under Rule 3A shall be attracted if compromise on the basis of which the decree was passed was void or voidable. In this case, this Court had occasion to consider in detail Order XXIII Rule 3 as well as Rule 3A.”

“That thereafter it is specifically observed and held that a party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable”

As held by this Court in a catena of decisions right from 1977 that a mere clever drafting would not permit the plaintiff to make the suit maintainable which otherwise would not be maintainable and/or barred by law. It has been consistently held by this Court that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage…

…Therefore, by asking such multiple reliefs, the plaintiff by clever drafting wants to get his suit maintainable, which otherwise would not be maintainable questioning the Compromise Decree. All the aforesaid reliefs were subject matter of earlier suits and thereafter also subject matter of O.S. No.1750 of 2015 in which the Compromise Decree has been passed.

“What was required to be considered by the High Court was whether the independent suit questioning the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not. The aforesaid crucial aspect has not been dealt with by the High Court at all and High Court has gone into the validity of the Compromise Decree in view of Order XXXII Rule 7 CPC. At the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the only thing which was required to be considered by the High Court was whether the suit would be maintainable or not and that the suit challenging the Compromise Decree would be maintainable or not in view of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC and at this stage, the High Court / Court was not required to consider on merits the validity of the Compromise Decree.”

Previous Posts

There Is No Negative Equality; Benefit Conferred Without Legal Basis Cannot Be Relied Upon As A Principle Of Parity: Supreme Court

Section 106 Evidence Act Is Not Intended To Relieve Prosecution From Discharging Its Duty To Prove The Guilt Of The Accused: Supreme Court

Call for Papers by Amity International Journal of Juridical Science [AIJJS, Vol 8]: Submit by May 31

Final Report Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence But A Collective Opinion Of Investigating Officer: Supreme Court

Girl Child In A Very Vulnerable Position In Our Country; No Leniency For POCSO Convict: Supreme Court

‘Fundamental Right To Form Cooperative Societies’, ‘Article 43B’: Remnants Of 97th Constitutional Amendment After Supreme Court Judgment Download Judgement